So where were we? I survived a week on the slopes at (reasonably) high speed. However, everywhere I turned the debate about air travel, and its effect on the environment, seemed to be raging.
In the EasyJet in-flight magazine, CEO Andy Harrison was keen to address the Stern Report and dispel some myths: in built simplicity and a low-cost approach makes them more efficient than others he says; they therefore balance economic development and impact on the environment; they support EU emission trading; taxation is not the answer ("giving the government money does not improve the environment") but reform of state subsidised airlines might help. And, he says, aviation accounts for just 1.6% of global greenhouse gases anyway. Remember that figure.
Then in The Guardian, George Monbiot gets stuck in as usual: Uk airplane emmissions by 2050 will account for 49% of the governments CO2 reduction targets. And planes other greenhouse gases create a global warming effect 2.7 times greater than Carbon dioxide alone. Aviation, he says, will account for between 91% and 258% of the greenhouse gases the UK will be permitted to produce in 2050 (Are you following these figures?) and, he says, emission trading won't work - the answer in his view is to limit airports and travel.
Over in the Telegraph, Andrew Pearce doesn't bother too much with the figures. He just berates environment minister Ian Pearson for suggesting we shouldn't indulge in cheap flights and basically argues that you can't ignore the market. Quite where that leaves the planet, he doesn't say.
Meanwhile in Newsweek, Richard Branson says investment in science can make the skies green - which is why he's supporting a $3billion project for biofuel production. The Prime Minister, having bought offsets for his holiday flights, seems to agree Science will be the answer.
As I reflected on all this over a Chocolat Chaud at 1600m, I also read that it was the warmest alpine winter for 1300 years, that if I had travelled by train to the Alps I would have been responsible for 5.7g of CO2 per kilometer as opposed to 180g by plane, but that at least the resort I was in runs its lifts on hydroelectricity. And although over the border the upmarket Swiss resort of Zermatt proudly declares itself to be car-free, there is a very busy heliport bringing in rich skiers.
So what to make of it all? A classic battle of mis-matching statistics - figures which don't relate to each other and which are cherry picked and spun to suit commercial or political (including environmental) interest. It leaves the layman confused rather than illuminated. In such circumstances the only thing you can be really sure of is that the stakes are higher than Mont Blanc and the debate has a long way to run.
And that hot air rises.
